Admissibility and Evidentiary Value of Multiple Statements by Accused in Criminal Trials

Reliability of the Statement of a Person Accused in Many Criminal Cases

In criminal trials, the statements made by accused persons often play a pivotal role. But what happens when police record such statements multiple times? Does repetition undermine their reliability, or can they still hold evidentiary weight? The question of reliability of the statement of a person accused in many criminal cases arises frequently, especially amid allegations of coercion or evolving narratives. This blog delves into Indian legal principles, drawing from CrPC provisions, judicial precedents, and practical considerations to clarify this complex issue.

While courts generally scrutinize such statements carefully, they are not automatically discredited. Instead, their truthfulness, voluntariness, and context determine admissibility. Note: This is general information based on legal precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.

Legal Framework for Recording Multiple Statements

Under Indian law, police have discretion to record statements multiple times during investigations, typically under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). These are not substantive evidence but can highlight contradictions during trial. The prosecution must supply copies to the accused for a fair defense 2016 0 Supreme(Chh) 93.

Key principles include:1. No Prohibition on Multiple Recordings: There is no bar against recording statements repeatedly from accused or witnesses. Initial versions may evolve, but courts must assess each for voluntariness 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 1890.2. Evidentiary Value: A tainted or discredited statement cannot discredit the accused further. A tainted statement which the Legislature had discredited cannot be used to discredit the accused. A statement recorded under section 122 of the Criminal Procedure Code is a mere record of an investigation... The person who makes the statement does not take the responsibility of testifying to the accuracy

KING v. KIRIWASTHU ET AL.

.3. Disclosure Statements: Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, parts of an accused's statement leading to discovery are admissible, even if not formally recorded. But, simply for not recording any such disclosure statement the fact of disclosure or leading to discovery by the accused cannot be erased entirely from the evidence 2014 0 Supreme(Tri) 270.

Trial courts evaluate context, mental state, and circumstances to determine reliability 2019 7 Supreme 641.

Specific Cases Highlighting Reliability Concerns

Judicial rulings provide nuanced insights into multiple statements by accused persons and witnesses, often mirroring scrutiny applied to accused narratives.

Victim and Witness Statements as Analogies

In cases involving victims, multiple recountings are common, especially in trauma-related offenses. For instance, a victim might give varying accounts initially, yet courts do not dismiss them outright. Victims may provide different versions of events, and a seemingly contradictory initial account does not automatically discredit subsequent statements 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 1890.

In a POCSO case, the victim confirmed: Police had recorded my statement once however made inquiries from me two times 2019 0 Supreme(Del) 739. Despite this, the High Court dismissed an appeal against acquittal due to inconsistencies and lack of medical evidence, stressing reliable testimony's importance 2019 0 Supreme(Del) 739.

Similarly, in a murder trial based on circumstantial evidence, a witness (PW-5) admitted: her statement had been recorded by the police 3 or 4 times. The first statement was at 11.30 am and the second at 4 pm both on 10th August 2010 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 2712. The court found contradictions unreliable, acquitting the accused as the prosecution failed to complete the chain of circumstances 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 2712.

Accused's Statements and Disclosure

For accused persons, cases like a murder conviction illustrate acceptance of guided disclosures. The statement shown to him, bears his signature as well as that of accused. He agreed to show the place where he had committed murder of his wife... Police recorded his statement as per his statement 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 2433. The appeal was dismissed, upholding last-seen evidence and reliable witness testimonies 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 2433.

Investigating Officers (IOs) must justify multiple recordings in the case diary for transparency 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 1327. In sexual assault cases under false promise of marriage, repeated queries to the prosecutrix were noted, but consent vitiation was key: the prosecutrix had asked the petitioner multiple times regarding their marriage... Consent obtained under a false promise of marriage constitutes a misconception of fact 2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 166.

Special Considerations for Vulnerable Cases

Child Witnesses and POCSO

Child statements require sensitivity. Special provisions under POCSO and JJ Acts mandate supportive environments. Courts emphasize avoiding re-traumatization: The court emphasized the need for sensitivity in handling such cases, particularly for vulnerable witnesses like children 2021 0 Supreme(Pat) 1013.

Impact on Mental State

Requiring recounting multiple times can affect mental health, leading to inconsistencies. In one case, a victim faced repeated narrations to authorities, prompting judicial concern 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 216. Courts balance thorough investigation with fairness.

Investigating Officer's Role and Best Practices

IOs enjoy discretion but must document reasons. Failure invites scrutiny. Recommendations include:- Document justifications for repetitions clearly.- Use trained personnel for children 2021 0 Supreme(Pat) 1013.- Ensure voluntariness to uphold integrity.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

The reliability of multiple statements by an accused person in criminal cases hinges on judicial evaluation of context, voluntariness, and consistency—not mere repetition. While permissible, such practices demand transparency to prevent abuse. Courts typically admit portions leading to discovery or contradictions, but tainted statements lose weight

KING v. KIRIWASTHU ET AL.

2014 0 Supreme(Tri) 270.

Key Takeaways:- Multiple statements are legally allowed but must be scrutinized 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 1890.- Provide copies to accused for defense 2016 0 Supreme(Chh) 93.- Prioritize sensitivity for vulnerable parties 2021 0 Supreme(Pat) 1013.- IOs: Record reasons in case diary 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 1327.

This framework ensures justice while safeguarding rights. For tailored advice, seek professional legal counsel.

References: 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 1890 2016 0 Supreme(Chh) 93 2019 7 Supreme 641 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 216 2021 0 Supreme(Pat) 1013 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 1327

KING v. KIRIWASTHU ET AL.

2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 166 2019 0 Supreme(Del) 739 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 2712 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 2433 2014 0 Supreme(Tri) 270 #CriminalLaw #PoliceStatements #EvidentiaryValue